Case 1600717/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Philips v AO.com (First Respondent) Expert Logistics Limited (Second Respondent) — 2022
- Case reference
- 1600717/2022
- Decision date
- 24 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G Cawthray Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Philips
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a video hearing on 21 October 2022 before Employment Judge G Cawthray, the tribunal recorded that the Claimant’s claim against the First Respondent was dismissed upon withdrawal. It also recorded that the Claimant’s complaints of harassment and victimisation were dismissed upon withdrawal.
The judgment further noted that the Claimant’s claims of unfair dismissal, direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, indirect disability discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments continued against Expert Logistics Limited. No merits decision on those continuing claims is contained in this record.
The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested. No remedy was awarded in this judgment record.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment records that the Claimant’s claim against the First Respondent was dismissed upon withdrawal, but does not specify the underlying cause of action in the extracted text. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Harassment | Recorded as dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Recorded as dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.